MICHAEL RICHARD MAHER, PETITIONER,
v.
DANIEL JUNIOR, ETC., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Michael Maher petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention on a $100,000 bail pending an indirect criminal contempt hearing. The Florida District Court of Appeal granted the writ and ordered his immediate release, finding the trial court violated contempt procedures by detaining him without proper notice and without following Rule 3.840(c) requirements.
The court held that the detention was unlawful and the writ of habeas corpus must be granted. The trial court impermissibly detained Maher to ensure his appearance at a later hearing, violated Rule 3.840(c) procedures for contempt proceedings, and failed to provide notice that Maher faced criminal penalties.
[1] A litigant who appears in compliance with a show cause order cannot be impermissibly detained to ensure their presence at a later hearing.
[2] A judge may arrest a defendant in response to an order to show cause only if the judge has reason to believe the defendant will not appear.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The trial court impermissibly detained a litigant who appeared in compliance with a show cause order to ensure his presence at a later hearing.”
Establishes that detention of a compliant defendant to secure future appearance violates contempt procedures
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaher appeared at an August 3, 2016 hearing on an order to show cause regarding his failure to comply with a previous court order. The trial court inf…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bail Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael Richard Maher petitions for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his de*950tention and $100,000 bail pending a hearing on an indirect criminal contempt charge. We grant the writ and order Maher’s release forthwith.
Maher appeared at an August 3, 2016, hearing on an order to show cause stemming from his failure to comply with a previous court order. At that hearing the court informed Maher of the charges against him, explained his rights, and informed him that a later hearing would be set on the matter to permit Maher to present evidence, testimony, and be represented by counsel.
The court went on to inform Maher that he was
not entitled to a jury trial because even .if you were to be found guilty at that hearing, a future hearing, the sentence would never be more — it would always be less than six months in the county jail. But I do have a problem with your coming back for that hearing where testimony will be taken and you facing time in the county jail, if you were to be found guilty. So for that reason, sir, I’m going to take you into custody right now, and I’m going to set bail for you to be released, if you post the bail. The bail will be in the sum of $100,000. I am convinced that facing a potential jail time you are not going to come back for the hearing of the Order to Show Cause where testimony will be taken. That hearing will be either September 19th or September 23rd.
Maher’s counsel objected to the incareerar tion, and expressed that an Order to Show Cause, consistent with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, had not' been entered authorizing Maher’s incarceration. Additionally, counsel argued that there was no evidence to support Maher’s ability to pay a $100,000 bond. The court noted the objections and set the hearing for September 19. It entered an order of commitment for Maher’s detention.
The petition must be granted, and the detention order must be quashed. The trial court impermissibly detained a litigant-who appeared in compliance with a show cause order-to ensure.his presence at a later hearing. While Rule. 3.840(c) permits. the arrest of a defendant if .the judge has reason to believe the .“defendant will not appear in response to . the order-to show cause,” Maher had, in fact, appeared in court on August 3, as ordered, in response to the show cause order.
Moreover,- and fatal-to the incarceration of this litigant, the notice of the August 3 show cause hearing did not advise Maher that he was subject to criminal contempt proceedings. J.M.P.U. v. State, 858 So.2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Maher was -not advised that he faced a criminal penalty at that- hearing. Anton v. Anton, 106 So.3d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). The notice warned Maher that failure to appear at the hearing “may result in the court issuing a writ of bodily attachment.” Maher did appear.
The trial court’s failure to follow the procedures for contempt merits issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, requiring Maher’s immediate release from custody. Durant v. Boone, 509 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Maher’s petition also requested that the chief judge of the circuit court reassign the case to another judge for hearing. Our opinion granting Maher’s petition for habe-as corpus is without prejudice to Maher filing an appropriate motion to recuse the trial judge.
Petition granted; no rehearing will be entertained.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baratta v. Costa-Martinez, 252 So. 3d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…motion for order of commitment and accompanying affidavit, no show cause order was issued and because there was no compliance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, applicable to indirect criminal contempt proceedings. See Maher v. Junior, 198 So. 3d 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Anton v. Anton, 106 So. 3d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); De Castro v. De Castro, 957 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Decoro v. State, 771 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Baker v. Green, 732 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We therefore reve…
-
Carter v. State (15th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Durant v. The Honorable Eddie Boone, 509 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- J.M.P.U. v. The State of Fla. & Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 858 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Anton v. Anton, 106 So. 3d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)